[1981] OLRB Rep. March 302
2481-80-R Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Applicant, v. Mason Windows Limited, Respondent, v. Group of Employees, Objectors.
BEFORE: N. B. Satterfield, Vice-Chairman and Board Members F. W. Murray and O. Hodges.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 30, 1981
The Board's decision which issued March 11, 1981 granted interim certification to the applicant pursuant to section 6(1a) of The Labour Relations Act. The issue outstanding at the time was whether persons in the classifications of truck driver, serviceman and motor vehicle mechanic should be excluded from the bargaining unit sought by the applicant. The respondent and the objectors are seeking to have them excluded on the basis of insufficient community interest between the employees in those classifications and other employees falling within the bargaining unit. The objectors requested, in the alternative, that the appropriateness of the unit be determined by a vote of the employees pursuant to the Board's discretion under section 6(1) of the Act to direct a vote for that purpose. The Board reserved its decision on both issues after hearing the representations of the parties and now, having had the opportunity to consider fully those representations the Board's decision is as follows.
The respondent contends and the objectors concur that truck drivers (highway and cartage), motor vehicle mechanics and servicemen have separate and distinct community of interest and ought to be excluded from the bargaining unit; or, in other words, would themselves constitute an appropriate unit. There are seven truck drivers, three vehicle mechanics and three servicemen. The representations of the respondent and objectors as to the facts upon which they would be relying, if proven, to establish that employees in these three classifications share a separate and distinct community of interest from that of the other employees are as follows.
The respondent is a manufacturer of quality doors and windows which it distributes across Canada. The employees in the undisputed part of the bargaining unit, i.e., those for whom the applicant was granted interim certification, are engaged in the production and assembly of the door and window units. The plant in question is located in Pickering, Ontario, and the respondent's office is at the same location, although it was not indicated whether it was included in the same building as the plant. The respondent's garage for its fleet of vehicles is located on the 'same property some 600 feet away from the plant. The finished products are delivered by truck to the respondent's customers.
The respondent employs two categories of truck drivers, highway drivers and cartage drivers and the drivers are interchangeable between the two categories. When they are working as highway drivers, they are engaged primarily in inter-provincial hauling although they may also do hauls which are entirely within Ontario. Highway drivers are paid on a basis of miles driven per day and work substantially more hours than the plant employees. Cartage drivers haul only within Ontario. Truck drivers are supervised by the Traffic Manager, a source of supervision distinct from plant supervision. It is claimed that the truck drivers have some inter-face with the office staff and with the garage employees (i.e. vehicle mechanics) who maintain and service their trucks. The servicemen are supervised by the Service Manager who is located in the respondent's office. They are dispatched from the office to deal with product complaints and their work day is spent away from the office or plant. Their vehicles are serviced and maintained at the respondent's garage by the vehicle mechanics; thus the respondent claims, they have inter-face with the office and garage employees. The three vehicle mechanics are responsible for servicing and maintaining the respondent's truck fleet, servicemen s vehicles and the mobile equipment used in the plant. The respondent maintains that the latter is the only work they do which associates them directly with the plant; the rest of their work is done at, and presumably out of, the garage. Two of the mechanics are qualified automotive mechanics, the third is a qualified welder. The respondent contends, therefore, that they utilize totally different skills than the plant employees.
The respondent and objectors contend that the absence of inter-face between employees in the three classifications and the plant employees (except for the vehicle mechanics when they are working on plant mobile equipment), the different nature of work, the skill differences of the vehicle mechanics, the separate sources of supervision and the different pay conditions for highway drivers establish a community of interest for employees in these three classifications separate and distinct from that of the plant employees.
The underlying issue in this matter is not community of interest per se; it is whether one bargaining unit inclusive of all of the employees engaged in the manufacture, distribution and servicing of the respondent's products is appropriate. Community of interest is only one of four main factors which the Board usually considers in determining the appropriateness of an all-inclusive unit. See Usarco Limited, [1967] OLRB Rep. Sept. 526. The other three factors are centralization of managerial authority, economics and source of work and, as the Board stated in Usarco, while they are interdependent, they are not necessarily of the same importance. The Board, having considered the representations of the parties, is satisfied that, if proven as facts, they would not establish that the employees in the three classifications comprise a unit of such diverse interests and functions that would warrant their exclusion from a unit of "all employees" and the creation of a separate unit for them. The Board, therefore, finds it unnecessary to inquire further into the issue of community of interest.
Insofar as the exercise of the Board's discretion under section 6(1) to "...conduct a vote of any employees of the employer for the purposes of ascertaining of the wishes of the employees as to the appropriateness of the unit" is concerned, the Board had the following to say in its decision in Harding Carpets Limited, [1961] OLRB Rep. July 128:
"The Board has exercised its discretion under this sub-section to ascertain the wishes of the employees as to the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, not in cases where there is "doubt" as to the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, but in cases where in the opinion of the Board each of the several units might be appropriate, so that the wishes of the employees constitute a major factor in the determination of what unit the Board should find appropriate in the particular case."
Bearing in mind that statement and having regard for the Board's determination of the community of interest issue, the Board is of the view that there are no circumstances in this case that would cause it to exercise its discretion to conduct a vote on the appropriateness of the unit proposed herein by the applicant and it declines to exercise that discretion.
In the result, the Board finds that the truck drivers, motor vehicle mechanics and servicemen should not be excluded from the bargaining unit. Thus the composition of the bargaining unit now may be resolved. The Board accordingly finds that all employees of the respondent in the Town of Pickering, Ontario, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, office and sales staff, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period, constitute a unit of employees of the respondent appropriate for collective bargaining.
A formal certificate will now issue to the applicant.